It's 400 PM. I will call this meeting to order. This is a public hearing and we're the Putnham County Planning Commission. We're the designated local planning agency for the county as prescribed in chapter 163 of the Florida statutes. We function under the authority of articles
11 and 12 of the Putham County Land Development Code. The primary responsibility of the commission is to serve as an advisory body to hear and make recommendations to the board of county commissioners on matters related to and provisions of proposed amendments
to the Putham County Comprehensive Plan and the Putnham County Land Development Code. The members of this board will review each application and make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners at their next regularly scheduled meeting on October 28th, 2025.
Procedurally, we will call each case by name and number. A member of staff will then briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then take any comments from the applicant or their representative, followed by any public comments concerning the request. Please direct all comments or statements to the
board and not to other members in the audience. The motion will be voted on by the board members and become our recommendation to the to the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners will make the final determination regarding the application. Applicants have the right to withdraw their request at any time during the
application process. No cases were withdrawn. The first case we're going to hear is re 25 um 0000001. However, before we do that, I need to ask, has there any anyone had any exparte communication concerning either
of these cases? No. No. Does anyone have a conflict of interest with either of these cases? Okay. If you would just make that a part of the record, Ashley, um um are we going to hear 11? We're going
to hear 10 first, aren't we? Or 11, whichever the chair wishes. Let's do Let's do 10 first. Um well, yeah, let's do 10 first. Very well. Uh for the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development
Service. This is ReZ25-00000010. The applicant is uh Kevin Fischer requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial retail C2 residential to R2 and plan unit development PUD to commercial general. Wait, I got the wrong one. Sorry.
That's the Let's try that again. uh requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial to uh C2, residential 2 and commercial 4 C4 to commercial to uh to standardize uh for the purpose of
establishing a slide as well. uh for the purpose of establishing consistent commercial zoning across his properties for uh resale and/or use as a uh uh general contractor studio.
Uh there does not appear to be any wetlands or flood zone on this property. Uh should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant would then be subject to review by development review committee uh for any future developments that are consistent with the C2 zoning district as well as
Please bear with me. We seem to be having some technical difficulties with the presentation. So that's number 11. There we are. Okay. So this is the right one. Forgive me. The room display kept displaying
number 11 for some reason. There we go. Uh here we are. Uh should the applicants request be uh approved, they will be reviewed by the development review committee before obtaining any permits that are compatible with the C2 zoning district. Uh staff have also recommended
the combination of these properties and the performance of a de facto lot split to uh factor off the portion of land across State Road uh 17 there that contain uh Old Cherry Lane, sorry, 207.
Here you can see an aerial of the property. We are using a new software that at the time did not allow for the highlighting of the properties. It is the large one you see on the right hand side as well as the three to the south of it and their associated portions to
the uh left the west of uh 207 there. Uh here you can see the future land use for the area is commercial. The zoning you can see the properties more easily here. The C2, the C4 and the R2 on the very bottom there.
Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial retail C2, commercial intensive C4, and residential 2 to commercial 2. Staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets
locationational requirements of the commercial retail zoning district provided in the land development code and comprehensive plan. Are there any questions? It's only the property on the east side of 207. Correct. Or is there
So it is the totality of the property as he owns a small portion of property on the west side of 207. That is that the highlighted is that the highlighted pieces on that first map? Uh on the first map. Uh no sir, that would be
you normally outline the parcel that we're talking about, but I don't see right. Our uh software at the time did not allow us to outline the properties unfortunately. We were updating to the Arc Pro GIS. So on that map right there, which the highlighted properties you see there are part of a conservation easement
actually. Okay. Uh the subject portions are the ones that run parallel across the uh across the road from the ones on the uh the three little trapezoidal shaped pieces that are immediately across the
road from the three long skinny lots there. As you can see, they contain old cherry lane which uh is going to preclude any further development from occurring on them. And do they have separate parcel number? Are they separate parcels or are they considered they are part of the parcels on the west
side um east side? Sorry. Okay. That is why we recommended the de facto lot split in order to separate them out into their own parcels so that they would not you know factor into any future developments.
Are those parcels of size to do anything within? No sir. They are completely consumed by old Cherry Lane. They would essentially just become uh extensions of whatever parcels are adjacent to them if they were ever sold to the parcels adjacent to them.
Okay, that makes more sense. That's okay. I noticed there were some buildings on some of the sites. Um, are those going to remain? Are they going to be removed? Some of them looked residential. Uh, to staff's knowledge, the parcels
that are owned by the applicant that are getting reszoned are supposed to be mostly vacant. The buildings that there would in theory be older buildings that are unlikely to be in working condition. Uh, in which case they would most likely
be demolished for making room for new buildings. the ones on the west side. It could be that you have uh seen the properties behind them which do have homes which those will remain untouched as they are not part of this development. Okay.
Any other questions to staff? Well, so in in in reszoning that you're talking about in effect making new parcels over there. those parcels you got the property approach would assign them new parcel numbers and they would they would have a zoning and
future land use consistent with what's on that side of the road now. Is that correct? They would have the way the way I'm reading the application is that they're asking to do the whole thing. Correct. Uh they would retain their currently existing uh future land use which is commercial. uh those small
portions of land that contain Old Cherry Lane, they would be commercial too as well. However, there is no way to develop those properties due to the insufficient size. The setbacks alone would preclude any form of development from occurring there.
Is Old Cherry Lane being used as a road? I cannot speak to that unfortunately as it is a private road. If it is, it would be for the residential use only. Okay. I believe it is, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. Michael, could you pull up the current
zoning map and kind of um expand it to where I can see more to the north? Uh, unfortunately, this doesn't allow us to expand. Again, we were working with a new piece of technology. The next set of maps that we have will allow us to have a more zoomed out version.
Unfortunately, the Arc Pro GIS that the uh GIS department wanted us to use did not quite function the way we wanted. So, forgive us that. Uh directly to the north of this, however, is the um the
First Coast metal roofing uh business. And just beyond that is a commercial for development. I forget the name of it. And uh to the uh east of it is the old trust plant, which is a now defunct plan
unit development. Madame chair, we saw the next door neighbor. Okay. Um, eight months ago, we turned them down. Okay. I remembered this property came up. We We turned them down. They were going to manufacture or
Yeah. You're talking they were going to make a lot of noise or something. I forget why we turned them down. You're talking about the metal shop that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that that's that's that's my like I think that the I don't think the the zoning is so much of an issue on that side of the road. My concern is bringing
that commercial zoning and future land use to the residential side of the street there where there are houses. I got Madam Chair, may I speak to the the slivers of land on the west side? Please do, Zach. So, when we get an application for a
zoning map amendment, we go based off of the legal description that is provided to us by the applicant. So, they have essentially two options. They can provide us with the deed, which would be the legal description for the entire parcel, or a survey with the legal description for only the portion that
they want to change. Of course, nobody wants to spend more money than they have to. So, we were going based off of the legal descriptions on the deed. So, the lands across the street more than likely will not be able to be, excuse me, developed in any capacity because
they're so small. They're less than, you know, 510 of an acre, 0.05. So, no use would be able to fit on on that land, residential or commercial. So, it will create some bit of an abnormality with the zoning that's over
there, but no use could could occur. More than likely, if the the residential uses beyond it wanted to buy those pieces of land, they could work out some sort of a deal with the property owner. And it would actually be a benefit to the county and
to those owners because then they would have frontage, peacemilled, if you will, but frontage on 207 rather than Old Cherry Lane, which is a private road. Um, it's I don't even know that it's an easement. I think it's a prescriptive
right ofway. I don't think there's any legal easement for Old Cherry Lane. Um, nonetheless, that's why we see the entire parcel being reszoned. Um, but I don't foresee any commercial or even residential use
on those small pieces. Is there a reason we keep flipping in and out? Our screens go black. Uh, they're they're up right now, but they've been going in and out. I cannot speak to that. Uh, that appears to be another technical issue. We seem
to be having several of those today. That's okay. It's, you know, it's not raining today, so it's got to have something wrong. I'm gonna play devil's advocate on that. If let's say somebody that owned a parcel say to the west of those three pieces
purchased those three pieces and then maybe own two pieces to the west and then did a lot combination where now they have the ability to develop and they have a multiszone piece of property there. Do you not see that as an avenue to have that commercial use move to that side of
the road? um possibly if they if they obtain the necessary acreage for that use. But if you'll look at your future land use map series in your packet, everything over there is commercial. Um
and it wasn't long ago that we actually heard an application to go from commercial to residential for a rebuild Florida project. So, we already have kind of a nonconforming zoning future land use
combo on the west side anyhow. Um, and of course, you know, the county doesn't want to go after these map amendments and change them uh for the fear of, you know, changing someone's zoning without them being on board with it. So, we kind
of just tend to address those those items that are in front of us and then wait until I think that was part of the conversation when the metal shop came up here was how that got reszoned. The future land use got put into the place and how it was kind of probably just a
blanket kind of thing because that corridor there is busy and expected to be commercial. But the the trend as of right now from the last one we had to where they moving it from commercial to residential like shows that the natural progression of that is keeping the
residential on that west side of the road. So I don't know that I don't know that the future land use that is designated there it seems to be inconsistent with how the current use is headed. So
I agree with you everything for the most part on the west side is residential correct or is a low inensity commercial with appropriate designations or is vacant. Yeah. And then on the east side, we've got more commercial uses. Um, very
sporadic residential uses. I think if you went back, and you're probably not going to find anything where that was done as a change to commercial going through the proper process. I think you'll find that in one of the
iterations of the comprehensive plan that was done because like Mr. Morris said that's a commercial corridor and to give that a a land use that would be constusive to
commercial development. Everything out there was probably done. I doubt that anything was even looked at cherry uh because I remember that being done last time we did the comp plan and the time before when we did the comp plan. There were parcels of land that were in
areas where there's going to be water and sewer where uh it's planned in the future that we want to designate as commercial to draw people in so they don't have to go through the process of changing it. So I bet you're going to find that if you have time to go back and look at that,
but I don't think that's something that's a good use of time right now. I know the last time I kind of dug into this, uh, it was around 2010 when we did our evaluation and appraisal report that the county initiated a lot of map amendments. And I think since then, um, we've kind
of just stayed away from it and kind of gone to the the mentality of let's deal with what we have in front of us. there was a good bit of of land use changes with the last comp plan in the East Palanka area because of the infrastructure that's in place
there. So, but I think that is probably why this was done that way and that's why somebody comes up and wants to rebuild a house, we work on it with them. What would be the what would be the avenue um if they were going to separate
those? Is that is that something that uh obviously the property appraiser has to get involved to split that into something but is that something you got the the your department would approve although the sizes don't meet? So, we actually wrote this we wrote this
into our LDC um within the last round of legislative changes that we did where we created the de facto lots split process and different municipalities look at this anomaly differently. Um in Putinham
we say you can only have one primary use per parcel uh when it comes to residential and that's typically when we run into this. So what we said was if the property is of sufficient size to meet the dimensional requirements of the
zoning district, then they can do a de facto. Essentially, they just get a legal description of what they want to break off. They record it on a deed, whether it's to convey it to somebody else or a quick claim to themselves. That'll create the new parcel number,
and then from there, it's that own piece of piece of land. Um, in this case, staff and and I' we'd have to look at GIS and get an estimate, but in this case, more than likely staff would look at it and say, you know, it's 2,000
square feet. It's not big enough to conform to the zoning district. Even if all three were combined, um, if all three were combined, I mean, we'd we'd have to address it then and figure out how big it was. if it was big enough to support a use, then
potentially, yeah, they could just de facto it and split it off. Um, alternatively, if one of those residential uses beyond it wanted to acquire it, then we would just put them through an exempt subdivision. That's where they provide, you know, a survey
and show the boundary line moving and and it's legal that way as well. Um, there's also a unspoken elephant on this, but the middle portion on the west side is is not actually part of this uh as only the north and south ones are uh
considered contiguous of the opposite end. That middle one has already been de factoed off at some time in the past by a different property owner. So the the middle one on the west is its own partial now you're saying? Correct.
Okay. Is that why there is what seems to be a small partial line on the east one that corresponds to that? Uh, no sir, that appears to be a uh mixed zoning that happened on the east side sometime in the past as well.
Okay. So, so Madam Chair, I don't have any concern with the C2 reasonzoning on the east side of 207, but for the C2 to jump across 207, go to the west side, and now include just two
of the lots, not three, if I heard Michael correctly, I have I have concern with that, especially after hearing what Zach said about the applicant submitted a a deed that included that entire parcel. So, both pieces of it. Had he done a boundary survey and only included
items on the um east side of 207, we would not be jumping over 207. And I think it might be cleaner for us to pause and let the applicant consider giving us a boundary survey to only include the parcel on the east side of 207 so we keep it nice and clean going
forward and maybe just consider tableabling this thing for the meantime and let the applicant consider that. Okay. Are you want to put that in the um form of a motion? We would need We'll get to that, but
uh yes, I would be happy to. We'll need public comment. Are you the applicant or owner? Okay. You own property near there. Okay. would you come up to the microphone so we can all hear you and get y'all ready
and give us your name and address please darling. Hello Margaret Orango. Good afternoon. Um your address 2015 St. John's Avenue but that address over there is right beside the trust. I believe it's 156 state road 207. So I find this curious
because there always has been a desire for the applicant to come and these lots without considering future usage and now here we are. So my question is what is the comprehensive plan for that corridor because literally residential,
commercial, commercial light, commercial intensive. So it just seems like a big hodgepodge of things and I'm wondering if a developer, someone should come into the community with a lot halfway across the street, another part here, part
and that and that that occurred probably because of the road going through after the the land was there. But um I think the commercial zoning that's already there probably happened as something that was administratively done. But you're concerned about well just what's
the overall usage for the future like as in my grandmother just passed. God bless her soul. She's 95 and she wants me to use the old lot as sort of like a garden. She used to feed people in the community and she dug the whole thing up and that's great. But my only concern when they sent the form
letter um curiously less than 30 days I was lucky to be here today. Um it just looked as if a lot was going on. It just looked too busy because I would wouldn't the ultimate goal be to attract people to a commercial district who can actually use the land. Even in the case
of the lot that she will to me I'm here if you're facing the trust place the lot on the left but half of it or a slither is way over there across the street on someone else's yard. So, it's always been an interesting position just that corridor. Yeah. I think I think the idea of
getting a boundary survey is a good idea. And I think also I would encourage the owner to negotiate purchasing that land if he doesn't already own it. That's that sliver of land on the left side on the right side of 207, that
little tiny triangle to make everything contiguous that the owner actually has in his power. Um, and then some of them might have already been split by the previous owner because a lot of those people have transitioned on. So the prior to their transitioning, their
lots were acquired just for the sake of being acquired without checking to see if they truly in fact held this piece or this piece or a combo platter. So I don't know. So I was just it's it is curious and we appreciate you're asking that question. Curiosity is a good thing.
Yeah. In moderation, I guess. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. Stick around and we'll see what we do. All right. I I I think the answer to her question is 207 wasn't always as big as it is. That's right. 207 grew up. No, that was 207's grown over the years
and that's created these kind of jumbled up little chopped off pieces at all. So, but I I understand that's just one of those areas where we've got mixed uses there. It's been traditionally used for commercial stuff, but also residential stuff. So, that's just one of the areas in our county where that
all all kind of comes back together. Yep. Jump off of that. Uh 207 used to not even be there. This property uh the subdivision that these properties are a part of was created before 207. Yeah. And so that's why it kind of got carved the way it did.
Right. Well, 207 being widened too also took a lot out of of these Absolutely. So, and that happened fairly recently. I remember it. So, um I think there's some good points here. Would you like to speak, ma'am?
No. She's with you. She bring her Did you bring her blanket? Much about you she wants to say. Okay. All right. Not to worry. Um is there anyone else that would like to speak? I need to ask that question.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing portion section of the meeting and bring it back to the board for discussion. and potential motion. Um, Madam Chair, I have just one question and please forgive me if I'm a little confused on this.
Is are one of these parcels or part of the existing PUD that's there? That is the trust plant. No, that's for re 251. Okay, that's I've been Okay, thank you. I'm like we all seem to be having a bit of technical issues. I don't see the Yeah, I was
I think part of the problem is we're not visualizing it totally because we're seeing uh what we're seeing from ArcGIS, but uh I hope ArcGIS will play nice with you in the future. We've received yet another new GIS map
since then, and all future projects after today will have highlighted areas. Thankfully, we made sure to make that a point when we communicated with GIS staff. So let's recap what is being requested here. The lands that are owned by this
particular applicant are being reszoned to C3 C2. C2 Oh, this is land use. I'm sorry. Land use is being changed to C2. Uh the zoning is going from C2, C4 and R2 on the uh the big large property on the
westand side, the two under it and the re the residential under that as well as the associated portions on the west side. He's wanting to standardize all that to commercial too uh for the purpose of establishing a uh
either a trade office space for like plumbers and electricians and what have you or for potential resale? Okay. Are are our only two options to approve it as it's written or deny it or do we
have the ability to modify? We can modify, can't we? Um, Zach, Michael, so I was actually thinking about that. I think it would probably be more prudent to recommend denial as presented to you if I don't want to put words in anyone's
mouth, but if you're concerned about those lands on the west side and perhaps have some feedback that you would rather see a boundary survey as as Mr. Sheffield pointed out, I worry with when you if we
try to table it because it's already been uh scheduled with the BOCC and advertised and without a withdrawal from the applicant. I don't want to necessarily get in front of the BOCC and say, you know, staff at the recommendation of the board, staff is is
pulling the application. We're not pulling it. We're just tableabling it and delaying it. Yeah. I mean, we've we've tabled before. Yes. So, that is a third possibility. Um, I'd rather I feel uncomfortable denying
something that's got some viability to it just because part of it has a problem. Well, I think I think they understand direction. You don't? Yeah. If the applicant was here, maybe we could have more of a discussion, but without it,
uh, we we deny it and we give our reason and then it continues down. I think I think staff understands the direction Yeah. that it would take for us to be able to obviously we had a motion yet, but and again is is is our concern the
future usage of the land that's not being zoned in accordance with everything that they want to do. Does that make sense? Can you on the property on the west west side? Well, the majority that he's wanting
resoned is on the east side and I think understand. But I thought the discussion we had was we're concerned about those pieces on the west. Yeah. From what I'm hearing, it seems like there's not a whole lot of concern about the east side. It's the concerned is on
the west. That's correct. That's correct. So I could see a recommendation to deny as presented because of those lands on the west or I could see a recommendation to table until you get a boundary survey
reflecting only the lands on the east. But what we can't do is say recommend approval but only for the east side because that would technically be conditional reszoning and we can't do that right by law statute. Right. Okay. Thanks,
Madam Chair. What is it? The lots across the street are now what? R2, R1, R2, R2. So, is there any way we can cut them out? That's what we're talking about. We're talking about doing that talking about But having vote on the east side and cut
Yeah. No, we can't do that. We can't We can't make that decision here. We can't leave that as R1 because they're contiguous right now. But, um, we need that boundary survey in order to leave out the west side from the boundary survey and we would need
the applicant to say this is what I would like to do and then give us a proposal for that part of the land. Um so that's kind of where we are and if we do that with this particular case it definitely impacts the zoning doesn't
it? if we do the uh boundary survey request. Uh for this case, all it will do is delay until he gets that boundary survey uh as opposed to recommending denial and then going in front of the board of county commissioners where if he got a
denial there, he would have to wait a year to try again with a identical reason. Right. That's the reason I don't want to go denial. Right. But if we table 10 Mhm. does that what impact does that have on
11? It will have no impact as they are separate uh applications. Okay. Okay. It's not the same. Okay. If if we deny with the understanding that if it gets split up it's more likely to be approved. Will they have to
pay for another application fee or will that would just be considered this application that's just been have a revision associated with it? Well, I would probably kind of lean on my BOCC to let me know how they wanted to handle it because we've had zoning
designations in the past with a different board where they said essentially what you're trying to get is too intense, but we can't lower the intensity here. So it would probably be wise to withdraw and then reapply, right? They kind of gave them that and
then the applicant withdrew during that public hearing. So they have the ability to withdraw before the next board the board of county commissioner meeting. Yes, sir. They can withdraw any time until that decision is made. Right. Okay. And and that would not because they came here would not cost them that 12 months
because if they withdrew between now and then, they don't have to worry about that clock. Correct. That's correct. The 12-month is only for denial and it's a local policy that I'm sure the board could waver from if they decided to do so.
Okay. Zach, do you know when this is scheduled to go before the board? October 20 something. So that means it will get back to us if we table it and they're responsive. It could come back to us two weeks prior to
that board meeting. It could. Yes, sir. That makes sense. the effort of tableing it. I don't No, I don't think it it would it would come back on October 8th, I believe, is the second Wednesday of next month.
That would give you guys enough time to review it. So, my my my concern is there's there's there's more than just us what's happening here. Got to be done with them. When we say we say we would like to see it split to where they have to do something with the lots AC on the west side of the road.
Now staff has concern has to be able to evaluate the path that that goes. So like I from from from staff's point of view is there a difference between table and denial? Um well I guess one way to answer that
question is he's probably not going to be able to get it surveyed before October 8th in the notification requirement that we have. Um but in terms of if you guys recommend denial or you request to table it and bring it
back when all the resources are prepared. Um I think if you recommend denial, you're probably going to give the BOCC good justification to recommend the same and then that does put the applicant at risk if he chooses to, you
know, ride it out until the very end. But but direction from staff can be to the applicant. Hey look, they denied it here. Before it goes to the B Bo Boocc, we as staff recommend withdrawal, do X, Y, and Z in regards to splitting it up
and then resubmit. And as long as you guys relay that message to them, then it doesn't go to BOCC and they're still open on the the initial application. Doesn't cost any more money. And and if that survey takes two months, then they're okay.
It's better than a year instead of instead of forcing that into the BOCC meeting. Yes, sir. And in theory, if you guys recommend denial because of the lands on the west side of 207 and we advise the applicant that he can choose to pull his item from the BOCC agenda until he gets
the survey and then your recommendation would still be denial to the BOCC because of the westside lands, but then in the interim he has remedied it by getting this boundary survey for only the east. But his withdrawal would keep from going there. Correct. Well, he would he would
just ask that we defer. And he's got that right as well. He can say, "I don't want to go to October 28th. I want to go to the BOCC meeting after I get my survey and after you bring it back to us." Nope. We wouldn't have to bring it back to you because you would have already made your
recommendation to deny based on the lands on the west side. We deny it. It doesn't come back to us. We would put it into the record of the staff report that you denied based off of the west side. So when he provides the boundary survey for the east side, the west side would no longer be a
factor. Not to mention the notes that we're getting here. In theory, the minutes. Yep. In theory, we would want to see that you guys reviewed it though before the next step up. You know what I mean? We want to give you guys time to review it. So strictly speaking, he's not
separating the parcels at this stage. He's just saying that the properties on the east would be the only ones affected by the reszone. And as far as staff is concerned, that is essentially what we were here for today anyway. There would no not be any significant uh review
required more than just making sure that the legal description matches the legal description of the east side properties and there would still be the deacto lot split. Correct. At the at a future point, he could do a deacto lot split or even do an exempt subdivision with the neighbors on the west side to just claim those
properties from him. And then you guys would adequately translate to the BOCC that these were the only problems we had from planning commission even though it shows up as a denial. We would put it into the staff report so that they would have a written version of it and I would also make comment at
it at the BOCC meeting as I do every meeting about your recommendation. And I'll give you a little secret. Most of them watch the tape at this meeting. Hi BC. Yeah. Uh a lot of them will will sit down and watch the the YouTube
Yeah, I think as bad as a denial sounds, I think it's probably our best route to capture what our actual issue is and give them the opportunity to fix it while it still keeps moving forward. And I think it gives them the best option down the road. Um
but it but it's a denial though with our recommendation on how to fix it. Right. And that will also be reflected in the report. Okay. I think we're all on the same page. Yep. I think we're with it. All right. So, I'm gonna make a motion. Okay. move that we recommend the board of county commissioner denial of
reasonzoning for RAZ 250010 um as it's not consistent with goals and objectives policies of Pton County comprehensive plan with the caveat that we just spoke about of exempting the west side of 207
related partials until they've got staff's had a chance to sort that out with the Yeah, had a chance to sort it. I have a second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the
question. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Chair votes I. Um, this was unanimously approved by the planning commission and um the board of county commissioners gets to play with it next. But I I I do think
that the the applicant I wish they were here, but I think that the applicant will have a better better shot with that land on the west um by making it cleaner. So with that being said, we're going to
move on to case REZ 250011. Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, for the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. This is rez 250000000011. Uh Kevin Fischer is once again requesting a zoning map amendment this
time from commercial retail residential 2 and plan unit development to commercial general commercial C3 on a 2.01 acre property lo total of property located at 138 to 142 state road 207 in
East Palaca to allow the development of a used car sale facility. Surrounding zonings include a planned unit development and the residential to zoning district. The subject site has a future land use designation of commercial and the parcel has approximately 505 ft of access from
state road 207 according to the national wetlands inventory uh in the FEMA flood zone layer of the GIS reference map. The lands do not appear to contain wetlands and is located in FEMA flood zone X, not a special flood hazard area. Uh should the applicant's request be
approved, the applicant will then be subject to review by de development review committee before obtaining any permits for development of this property compatible with the C3 zoning district. Alternatively, he would be able to combine all the uh all the properties as
the applicant has uh desire expressed a desire to do and or resell them and part or whole. uh regardless of any regardless any development will require DRC review uh by the property owner prior to future development.
Uh here you can see the aerial again the same issue from before about the service. It is that northernmost property there with the two directly below it and the one to the east. The one to the rear to the east you said. Yes sir. Is it two parcels to the east?
Uh just the first one to the east of these four right here. That one, that one, that one, and that one. But they're not contiguous. No, they're all contiguous. They are contiguous. Okay, ma'am. The north one, the two below it, and this one, that one. That one. Okay. The signs got a little moved around out there.
My apologies, ma'am. I do too. Uh here you can see it a bit more. It's the area. That's the commercial future land use there in the corner. Uh here you can see the zoning, which definitely highlights it. You can see the PUD to the north, the C2 to the uh
southwest, and the residential two immediately to the east. Uh staff recommends staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial retail, residential 2, and plan unit development to commercial general. Staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the location requirements of the commercial 3 zoning district provided in the land development code and comprehensive plan. Are there any questions? And the C3 zoning was because car sales
couldn't occur in a C2. Is that was that the rationale? Correct. Okay. Yeah, I think this is a no-brainer. U but this is the one that has part of the PUD existing PUD in it. Correct. That's the one to the north. Uh
as you also have seen in our staff report, we cannot confirm if the PUD actually extended to that property or not or if it was an issue with recording. We believe it to be part of the PUD. However, we cannot guarantee that.
Is the remainder of the PUD under his ownership? The remainder of the PUD is under separate ownership. Really trying to get rid of that PUD. Yeah, we all are. Yeah. When was the PUD established? Do we know? Uh 1983,
if I remember correctly. It should be in your packet. Uh the original development agreement is at the end. Okay. Michael, can you pull up Google Maps and give us a current aerial of that area? I would be happy to, Commissioner.
While Mr. Graves is doing that, the uh ordinance for that PUD was adopted in 1997, the most recent version of it. Anyhow, um and within the exhibit defining the legal description and the
conceptual plan, it appears that that piece is not included, which is why we cannot definitively say whether it is or is not part of the PUD. So, it could be a mapping mapping error.
And those are separate parcels. Yes, ma'am. Okay, back up. Let's see. And then Michael, I don't want to speak on behalf of Mr. Sheffield, but I think he wanted Google Maps for a more
This will work. Michael, that'll work. That's fine. Yeah, that's the GIS. My apologies, sir. I figured you might want to see the parcel. Yeah, so that that works for me. Yeah, with the parcel overlay. That's good. So the true trust plant ownership is not
Mr. Fiser. Correct. Correct. The entirety of the PUB aside from that one lot that is in this uh application is still the True Trust plant. We don't know about this one lot. It does not appear to have originally been part of True Trust and it seems to
have been just a uh error on recordings part. Is there any code cases active at the trust plant now? Not to my knowledge. I couldn't speak to that unfortunately. We'd have to check with code enforcement.
So, when I did my site survey this morning, um obviously the trust plant went away several years ago and it looks like it's a auto repair for FedEx. No, that's to the south. Yeah. So, so I looked at the PUD that
was accompanying our agenda package and I looked at all the um approved uses for that site and I could marry up the approved uses to what I saw on that site and I know it's it's separate but it's something to consider.
Um so so you don't know if there's any active code cases on that or not? Not to my knowledge? No, sir. Okay. As far as uh as far as I could tell, there hasn't been any approved development on the true trust plant to begin with. Uh it could be that they
aren't properly using it. Uh at that point, it becomes a me a issue of waiting for somebody to report them to code enforcement as staff are not allowed to. And out 207, we've got several that are non-conforming uses. I think we've we've
seen them before. Okay. So, basically on the property that they're asking to reszone, we're only looking at one partic one building. Uh, currently, yes, there is only one
building for the time being. They would have the right to, of course, expand in the future if they desire. Okay. Great. So within the PUD it does reference uh several subdivision, the La Hardy
subdivision um and some other general descriptions here. Is there a way we can see the old platform? There you are.
If you'll turn your attention to the map, you can see Lee Hardies, which is the uh same subdivision I was mentioning. Sorry, let me with the previous case about how 207 essentially carved straight through a portion of Lee Hardies.
Michael, can you highlight the parcel in question so that we can see what the legal description uh summary is, please? He's working with GIS. Give him give him give him all the It's a trackpad. It's uh weird. It's
inverted controls. I don't get it. Are you wanting the uh true trust plant or just the applicant's properties? The applicant's northernmost piece. Yes, that'd be So, it's lots seven, eight, nine, and 10.
I don't have my glass 11. 7 8 9 10 and 11. Mhm. Except for the portion that was 207. So if you go to exhibit A, the Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,
track two, 7 8 9 10 and 11. Those are blocks uh in block B. Yeah, that's that's where I was. So this is block A. Okay, that's there we are. You can see the blocks now.
When it works, it's wonderful thinking out loud. You do that. There's a call in the last two sentences of track three that does address Westerly to the southwest corner of lot
12 of block A, which would be just north of that parcel. and then fence the northerly 300 ft more or less to the point of beginning. So that gives us our frontage. But yeah, we're missing
lots 7 8 9 10 11 of block A. I think regardless of what the whether it's in the PUD or not, it doesn't matter. But with the resoning, we recalibrate what the use is, right? The PUD goes away. Well, regardless of whether the PUD active or not. Correct. Right. But if we were changing the use
of the PUD, that could affect the entirety of the PUD. So the PUD is expired to my knowledge, which means they would have to establish a new PUD before they could do any development anyway. Uh we couldn't say that reszoning a portion of it would
grant them C3 rights to the whole thing. As long as it's expired, I'm good. Yeah, it's expired. Yep. If it's expired, it's tan's off. We can certainly it it needs to be reszoned um in order to do anything on it if the putt is expired. But
but didn't it take a commercial zoning? Didn't the move it into a commercial zoning? BUD's a BUD's a zoning district on its own. So here you can see the future land use where it is future land use commercial. So you can see as I try to zoom out here
and fail horribly uh that the entire the entire area is the commercial future land use as this will catch up. Uh meanwhile the zoning is uh when this loads
uh PUB for the true trust plant while the properties that we're looking at have a piece of PUD some C2 and the R2 uh to the north you've got the more C2 C4 and C1 to the south before you hit the uh east black proper I like to call
it. Now, is he going to combine those into one single parcel? That appears to be the applicant's goal at this time. Okay. The uh easternmost property essentially acting as the buffer between the commercial and residential due to its heavily wooded nature. Uh with the uh
nor the middle property working as expanded area for car sales and the northern property for potentially future development. Okay, Michael, quick question and and I apologize if you've already mentioned this. When we have an expired PUD, um
does the zoning default back to what it was preud? It can if a clause was baked into the PUD to do that. Uh most PUDs do not include such a clause, however, uh as most PUDs aren't designed to fail, so to
speak. Um so developers never really think to include a reversion clause. So, in this situation with that PUD being expired, what would that current zoning be? If it wasn't zoned for PUD, it would probably be some form of commercial
would be my speculation, though I can only speculate. There's no guarantee. Uh, when this was done, if memory serves right, looking at the original ordinance for it, it was agriculture in the past, uh, which is what a lot of the surrounding zoning still is. Uh but
agriculture is of course not compatible with the commu commercial future land use or the urban future land use is considered a holding zone and we would try to establish a more useful I hate to say uh zoning for the area
something more compatible with the infrastructure that's in place. Correct. How'd you determine that that pud was expired? uh the fact that the true trust plant is shut down and the uh pud is for the true trust plant and most other developments would not be permissible.
Uh if the development is nonexisting for a certain amount of time I forget off the top of my head, please forgive me. Uh a certain amount of time of no use after completion. I forget the amount of time off the top of my head. Puds are
something I'm only starting to really get into. uh after a certain amount of time the pud would expire naturally but they okay so in the in in their existing pud there's a list of things that meet the it doesn't have to be a trust
plant it's a trust plant but these are all the uses that are allowed and so let's take number four for example heavy machinery and equipment sales and service or hardware there's number seven hardware storage and outside storage um like any of those
uses would have and inevitably like perpetuated that pud. Correct. Correct. Even if they're not producing trust is there, as long as they're doing one of those uses or something that's consistent with what they're doing there, as long as they are in continuous use
with their development agreement, uh, and they are of course legally using the property, then yes, as long as they're legally what? Utilizing the property. property. Uh there have been no attempts to further develop or get any redevelopment
of this property since the plant was for uh shut shuttered. Uh any structures that have been around that long, we don't have any build permits for repairs or replacement. So if they are doing anything like that, staff has no uh idea
if they are or not, frankly. Right. Well, I just I playing devil's advocate again. I I don't from an owner standpoint, I don't see how if I own a piece of property and I meet the minimum requirement of something that's going on at one of these line items there, even if I'm just storing a
piece of equipment that's consistent with what was outlined in the PU whether or not I'm making trusses there, I I would wouldn't be I would be upset as a owner if you guys were to expire a PUD based on
without having the opportunity for them to say, "Look, here's what I've been doing. It's consistent with the P. You know what I mean? So, before we make decisions based on the puds expired, I do believe we might be getting a bit off topic here because only a single lot, which is may or may not even be
part of the original pud is I'll be honest with you, I'm way off topic. This is this is straight curiosity for me. How y'all come up with some of these things like I would have voted to approve this thing 10 minutes ago. Like, for sure. Ultimately, that is something that would have to be discussed with the
applicant at the time of future development. If they ever come in for figuring out what they want to do with the property in the future, they would come to us for a pre-application meeting, we would walk them forward with whatever the best process would be, whether that be a reszone, a new PUD, or even just straight development review
committee. It's a complicated matter that would work best in uh essentially working with the applicant as opposed to just speculating about their property without them even being here. But but if I were go to go over and purchase that property this week and then start building trusses there and then somebody showed
up and said, "Hey, this PUD expired, like how do how do you defend that position?" Considering the state of the building, I would imagine you'd probably want to bring that up to modern That's neither here nor there, but you understand where I'm going with it. Yeah, I get what you're saying. Uh but considering the state of everything, you would probably want to go through
development review at some point, at which point we would set you up for that pre-application meeting, and we would make sure that it either is or isn't expired at that point. we would review all the documents as opposed to just the few that I gathered for the purpose of this reszone and then at that point we
would walk you forward with the uh desired path to get you to that result. I think it would be advisable to speak strongly with the applicant and seriously advise them to be present at the BOCC meeting because these kind of questions are going to come up there
also or they may come up there and um they might not be as generous as we are. Fair enough. So, uh I think the applicant needs to to be present. Um,
I I I don't have hesitation about our moving forward with a recommendation with them not here, but I think for the final process, they need to be there to to respond to questions. Well, again, I I don't think whether or
not it's part of the PUD has really has any bearing on what our decision is here because of we're in effect resetting the use of the property. Um, I do understand that if that had an effect on the adjacent property that's not under this owner's
control, then that certainly needs to be considered. But from just a looking evaluating what they got going on here that it that it doesn't m that the PUD whether that piece is in or out doesn't seem to affect it for what what we're doing here. So, and I like the way they proposed using
that middle piece of land as a buffer and that's that's a wise decision or wise recommendation they were given. So, all right. Any other questions or comments or concerns? I don't think we had a public hearing
portion of this meeting. Is there anyone present who would like to speak either for or against this particular application? See, you want to come up? Come on. Just give us your name and address and we'll go ahead
again. Margaret Orango, 2015 St. John's Avenue. So, I drove past this the other day. There's already cars for sale on that lot. It used to be detail place, but there already cars sitting there. They say for sale. And then I'm just
curious. I looked it up on Zillow and it went for they wanted 4.4 million a couple months ago. Now they're down to three million. So I believe it's already a car dealership. So you drive down Highway 17, you'll see several cars parked here and there with
four sale signs on them. I know. But yeah, sometimes that happens. We we get a lot of cases where people get in trouble and then they try to remedy their problem and that could very well be what's going on. That's exactly what happened this time.
Code enforcement case was called on him for the illegal sale of cars and he's trying to remedy that with the reszone. Okay, there you go. Well, at least All righty. Thank you. Okay, and so the reasonzoning goes through it
alleviates any fine with non-compliance. Correct. It would remove the code case because now he's in compliance. Okay. We're not used to members of the public speaking to us and not being mad at us already. So, we appreciate it. Thank you so much.
So, madam madam chair, you made a comment about the middle lot being a buffer. They're going to use that as a buffer between the commercial area and the residential area behind it. The uh highlighted one, the residential two one. Uh if they were not to combine that, they would of course have a 10 to
15 foot buffer on that side uh sorry set back on that side and then they would still need to have their buffer as well. But if they just leave that vegetation and combine it in that natural vegetation there is going to be a very significant amount of buffer on that side uh blocking any encroachment into
the residential uh use you see on the screen. Okay, any other questions? I'll entertain a motion. All right, I'll get it. Um, I move that we recommend approval to the board of
county commissioners to reszone 250011 as it is consistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the Putham County Comprehensive Plan. I have a proper motion. Do I have a second? Second, Mr. Mud. A second. Second.
I think the general beat you to it there, Stanley. Okay. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, I will call for the question. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Chair votes I. Any opposed?
Okay. Um, I will ask Zach and and Michael, do we have any old business that needs to come before the board? No, ma'am. Do we have any new business? Yes, ma'am. I figured that. Um, so I know that this board was
eagerly awaiting an opportunity to have a joint workshop with our board of county commissioners to discuss recreational vehicles. um since since uh the inception of that
conversation and now um staff has been made aware of Senate Bill 180 uh which was passed with this last legislative session. It's effective July 1, 2025 and it actually is retroactive for two
years. Uh no municipality can establish any land use regulation that is more um intense than the existing legislation um within three years of a declaration
of natural disaster or declaration of emergency for a natural disaster. So it was a law that was sponsored in attempts to make redevelopment of residences and business owners easier.
Um there was some unforeseen uh oversight with that legislation and now if the county uh attempted to adopt any sort of legislation like make restricting RV use in any way shape or
form um anybody could challenge it inside outside the county. uh doesn't matter if you live here or not and potentially win that type of a an appeal even though we did not have such a
natural disaster in Putnham County. Yeah. If your county was named in the declaration of emergency, which Putinham County has been in the past three years, I believe, then um you can't do any legislative changes until it sunsets October of
2027. But that is of course if we don't get another declaration of emergency by then. Um there was one and I cannot remember what it was but there was one other situation that the chairman of the county commission had mentioned to me
that we would work on together and I'm sorry I can't remember what it was. I think it was that language about DRC review with the PUD. Yes. Um, I think it's more or less the direction, definitely the direction of staff. We don't want to mess with
anything. Um, we've got a pretty good set of LDRs in place, so we don't want to open up any can of worms. I for sure do not want to bring back any staff initiated text amendments. Um, but yeah, I don't know that we're going to
look at changing our LDR's comp plan or code anytime in the near future. Now, it is worth stating a citizen can initiate a more intense regulation, but we typically don't see that um as Mr.
Morris is familiar. Okay. Can I ask a question about the previous the RV thing? What uh and I'm trying to wade through what you were saying there. You're saying we can't enact any new. So that the the stuff that's existing on the
books is the rule of law for here or um there's a state standard for say RV occupation or use. So what we have in place currently is we can't impose that that regulation. Um
there really isn't any state standards on RV occupation. It's a local matter. the state lets the counties and municipalities decide. Um, so there's really nothing for us to kind of fall back on or lean to on the state legislation. Um, so we more or less just
have to keep what we have, enforce what we have. If somebody brings us an application to make it more restrictive or less restrictive, we would run that. But staff would not uh initiate a more restrictive language. So, in in the
language you're talking about, it's a more restrictive case, meaning if we were to bring if we were to meet with the county commissioners and have a relaxing of issues, then that is a viable that's still a viable path, correct or not?
Um, yes, sir. And so, for what it's worth, too, we could still have the conversation. We could ceue up the language and and do whatever we wanted to in terms of having the discussion. It's just if you pass the ordinance, that's where you subject yourself to litigation. Um, yes,
only if it's more restrictive. Correct. Correct. We could uh reduce the restrictions of that language. Um, but then you deal with, you know, the law of subjectivity and what may be more restrictive to you is less restrictive
to me. So, you know, especially when you're dealing with property rights. Yeah. That's what we got attorneys for. It is. That's true. There's also the issue that anything you add would never be able to really be come away. So, if you make a decision
that sounds great on paper, but then it turns out to cause some unforeseen problem, you can't take it back at that point. So, I just wonder if if this was intended initially to address FEMA housing that was brought in
as RVs and counties and municipalities could not impinge upon that. Well, the Senate Bill 180 is has nothing to do with RVs. It is any and all land development regulations. Oh,
so right. We couldn't we couldn't even say, you know, all right, all fences have to be 4-foot privacy, you know, would construction. We couldn't even do that. That would inense in in essence be more restrictive than what we currently have.
So, Senate Bill 180. Yes, ma'am. So, following that line of reason, we can't change anything, right? I mean, it's it's um it's a slippery slope for sure. Now again we can if a if we get a a citizen initiated application
yes we can we can work that and run that that would not be subject to this legislation but if the county initiates it then we could be gota I'm writing a note so just give me a
minute. Okay, we have the minutes before us from the uh August 13th meeting. Are there any changes, corrections, or omissions? Hearing none, I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes.
Madam Chair, I'll make a motion we accept the minutes from the last meeting. Thank you, Mr. Hodgej. Do I have a second? I can second that. You'll second that. You're good at seconding today, General.
Okay, we have a sec a motion and a second to approve the minutes as presented. Uh, are there any questions? Call the vote. All those in favor say I. I. Chair votes I. All righty. You've given me permission to sign them.
Get my blue pen out. All right. Uh, you want to give us a preview for next month? Make a motion. Um, I don't really know. Reszone PUD
and one other case that we're not sure if they've met their application deadline or not. Okay. All righty. So, but we will meet in October. Yes, ma'am. October 8th. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, hold that date and be here.
Appreciate it. Just out of curiosity though, the fact that last meeting we had a ton of people and seemed like each case had somebody speaking. Is it routine for the applicant to not show up? And when they file an application,
do do you let them know that it's not in their best interest, but it's useful if they happen to be here whether they speak or not. So, yes, sir. As part of our pre-application meeting with them, we tell them what their dates would be. Um, and we advise that their attendance is,
you know, vital but not required. Um, I would say probably 80 80 to 90% of the time the applicant will be here. Yeah. And sometimes there won't be anyone in the audience for public comment. But yeah, I don't mind the audience that
that's not the issue. But it just seems that both cases no nobody was here and there were questions that the council had that I think might have been answered. It was the same guy for both. It was the same person. Same. Well, it doesn't matter. I mean, he's he's double double wrong. Yeah.
Got one through. Madam chair, can I ask one thing if staff actually two things? One's informational. There's a good article on the front page of today's paper. Yes, it was growth in public county. Yes, it was a very good article. Secondly, which kind of is is from this. Is there a scenario where a medium to
large scale subdivision could be approved without coming to the boards that staff has the ability to approve it without it coming to to this board or the BOCC? Yes, sir. Um, Senate Bill 784 was also
passed with the last legislative session and it requires um all plat and replplat applications to be administratively approved. So, they are no longer um I would say
they're prohibited by statute from going to a a governing body. Um, our county council has stated that there are still pathways in which the county would have
a say on the plat. Um, his impression is like whenever it comes to ride ofway or other infrastructure. If that's to be dedicated to the county, then it could come to the board. but they should only be determining whether
or not to accept the infrastructure, not whether or not they agree with the plat. Um, it's also retroactive legislation. Um, so many of us expected the Dr. Horton subdivision, that's kind of the big elephant, uh, to come back in
front of public hearings. that subdivision if the infrastructure and the roads are to remain under their control and maintenance then it will not come back to a public hearing and that's a PUD.
That's correct. And that's uh you bring up a good point. So PUDS of course is a zoning map amendment. So the PUD will still come in and you would still see a conceptual plan. and you would still understand what their lot sizes are going to be and the density is going to
be for that subdivision or development. But if the PUD is approved, any platting that happens afterwards that does not involve dedicated infrastructure is administratively
approved. So that streamlines some things. That was the intent. Yes, but you can so the code can be rewritten and also
include land development code could also include that even if they are private streets, they have to be built to public standards. Mhm. So although it sounds like a lot of changes were made, actually it tightened
some things up and it gave you way to sun sunset old plats and and it put requirements um on the the surveyors and the platting. But then if you have the land development code in other places to back
it up, it almost it does streamline it. But if your land development code is strong enough, it it almost it almost fixes itself. So there might be some gaps that maybe Commissioner Williams suggest or look at.
You mentioned editing the land development code to have uh private roads built to public standard. We cannot do that because of the other Senate bill. We cannot. That is an intensification. Um but don't we already have? We we do.
We do. They already our code already says public or private ride ofways built to county standards paved so on and so forth. Yeah. So we are fortunate and that's enforcable. Okay. Yeah. I was just
question Justin or Jason that was that was kind of it. So if I heard you correctly the platting will not go to this board. can be administratively processed. But if there is a reszone or if you're talking about for example a 50 acre site and it has
multiple zonings that would come to us before for the reszone and so forth that would be later tied to a potential plat. Correct. That's correct. you. So, so you'll you'll still get the opportunity to hear the zoning uh decisions or future land use decisions, but you would no longer
get more than likely you would no longer get a plat unless it unless they're proposing to build the infrastructure and dedicate it to the county. And at that point, again, I I believe that you would be making a recommendation for the
the commission to accept the infrastructure or not. It wouldn't be anything related to the lots or the lot size, but the plat would still be reviewed. I mean, you'd have Yeah, you I mean, you're still going to have staff reviewing the plat for compliance with
the land development code. It's just going to kind of it would still go through development review committee and with the uh public the uh Putnham County surveyor uh before approval. It's just it would not be seen by the planning commission or the board of county commissioners
and you. So we have when we receive the application we have seven days to provide a sufficiency determination and within that sufficiency we have to tell them how long it will take before the plat will be approved. So which is
tricky because when Wes is reading those plats if the legal description is wrong or something like that well they got to go back and resubmit and so on and so forth. So, we're we haven't had to deal with it yet, but more than likely it's going to
be okay. You know, the DRC is going to look at it for right away width and drainage measures and lot size and density and so on and so forth. Um, and then from there, the the county surveyor and a couple other entities will review the plat and the language to make sure
it's all align with chapter 177 Florida statutes. And then if there's no reason to deny or approve with conditions, then um we passed a resolution uh designating
the county administrator as the land development administrator or the land plat administrator. It's whatever the Senate bill requires that title to be. So no longer will we have planning commission chair and board of county commissioner chair signing the plat. It
would just be um currently Mr. Suggs or his or her his designate. It was the resolution was written his or her, right? We want to be future proof. Don't want to do it again. And I just just a curious question. Um I
take it that there was no appropriation with all of these changes to help staff manage this more efficiently and timely. No. And that's actually one of the concerns. Well, for like, you know, for rural communities, um you know, we don't
we don't get the public input. We don't get, you know, the dollars to hire another employee to review it. Um we could potentially put a strain on our already strained um infrastructure, water and sewer. Um and it really it
removes well it attempts to dissolve any sort of you know um intergovernmental coordination but fortunately we can still have the DRC review it and you know you get public works and utility division and road division so they'll
still be able to see it and weigh in on on the in my opinion where it makes the biggest change is as soon as you get that plat you can put the building permits on a rocket docket and you get 50 or 75% of your as you can submit basically a
master and say I want 75% and they're issued right then. So that's this was all a a lot well it it basically the big change is when it comes to the building department and
that's where the big strain is on staff right now that we're seeing in other places. So yeah, and to speak to that point, fortunately for the for Putham County, in order for them to be eligible for that massive amount of permit issuance,
at the same time, the utilities have to be in place and we are limited in capacity and sto and wastewater. So that's kind of a blessing in disguise really. Um, but yeah, I mean that is another valid point. And I know it was
50% a couple years ago, but it wouldn't surprise me if you know some of the lobbyists I can't remember. There's one that's 50% one. I It's either one or the other, but it's a big it's a majority. They just say, "Here's what I'm going to build. I want this many." So,
without the plat being recorded, right? Lovely. Do we see this being changed in the future? And We see we foresee um Senate Bill 180 getting some revisions to kind
of make it less widespread, but 784 is probably here to stay. Okay, any other questions? These these conversations are very very helpful. Mr. Her, you've been very quiet today.
Yeah. Okay. Well, I uh hearing nothing else to come before the board. It is 5:21. This meeting is adjourned.